Please read post #9.
I read it earlier, and at your urging I have now read it again.
This doesn't answer my question. You said you thought the court was correct.
Yes, chickens are born with bones in them, but when someone says they are selling "boneless" chicken, no one thinks they came from chickens without bones, they think the bones have been removed through a de-boning process.
In this particular case, they had not been removed, or at least not sufficiently.
Their process failed. How often does it fail? In my experience, it has never happened.
I have never bitten into any chicken labeled "boneless" and found a bone. Nor would I expect to ever find a bone.
The legal system likes to use the "reasonable man standard." What would a "reasonable man" think of this?
Well you think the plaintiff should expect to find bones, even though this, in my experience, "never happens", and I think the man should not expect to find any bones, because again, in my experience this never happens.
What strikes me as ultimately silly is a court decreeing that "boneless chicken" can have bones in it. Well it wouldn't be "boneless" then, now would it?